Obama: Raising black army to overpower white civilians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6tjcmg671w
It's true because some white guy with a thick, black beard said so!First of all,
there are lots of racially-divisive things that Obama (and some other people in his Administration) have said. People who've been paying attention to the News and his speeches for the past 5 years will know that. And his insults toward anyone who dares question or disagree with him have bred distrust. That's his fault and nobody else's.
And second of all-----it's horrifying that you'd promote the views of that guy (whoever he is; the narrator or host in the video) who outright says he would join a black army to kill white guys. He may indeed have been joking, but it's rather doubtful considering his name-calling rant at the end of the video. And by the way, he's white (it looks like), so..........why else would he say such an atrocious thing if it weren't for the specific purpose of insulting people who fear Obama's tyrannical ways?
Sorry, but that guy comes off as a total jerk who has no business mocking anyone else."there are lots of racially-divisive things that Obama (and some other people in his Administration) have said."
Then it should be a piece of cake for you to give lots of examples, right?
"And his insults toward anyone who dares question or disagree with him have bred distrust."
No doubt you have several examples of these insults that the President has directed toward whose who disagree with him, too. Do share them.I've shared them so many times already that it's become a chore from me to inform the intentionally-uninformed. I really expected that if people are still gonna try to defend Obama's actions, that they would've paid attention to his words all this time! From all evidence over these last 5 years, liberals lose their willingness to listen to what he actually says; they seem blinded by his "historic" victory. I wonder if they're still getting tingles up their legs like Christ Matthews did as they sit in blind mesmerization every time he's mentioned or his face shows up on tv...
Do liberals not even read what he says? Do they not even listen to what he says as they watch his speeches?
There is much evidence left on the internet (although some of it has been wiped out in defense of the great Obama), that anyone who can use Google can indeed find the info for themselves. I sure do wish they would exercise their intellect in that manner, once and for all, instead of claiming ignorance and trying to kick the can down the road to those of us who paid attention."I have no examples and I think everyone is stupid because they don't agree with my extreme minority point of view, I also don't know that deleting things of the internet is pretty much impossible"
Fixed it for you.I don't think anyone said President Obama was great, but this hatred that some have for him has nothing to do with what he said or didn't say. Just be hones with yourselves and admit that your bias is because of his race. President Obama has said or done nothing that all the other Presidents before have done minus Richard Nixon. Why is it when these same things were said or done by his predecessors everyone kept their mouth shut and now for some reason decided to speak up because it is President Obama.
I am honest, with myself and with everyone else.
It's not about his race.
Matter of fact, he's part caucasian, remember.
And for your information, there are several men whose skin is black that I've seen on tv during the past few years who would probably make really great candidates for the Presidency.
So, no, it's never been about the color of his skin. Not with me.
So stop trying to use that old tired false-accusation argument, please. It does nothing but make you look like a false accuser.
Perhaps you should admit YOUR bias! Perhaps search your own conscience and admit that you defend Obama's actions simply because his skin is black.I am honest, with myself and with everyone else. Oh, it's pretty clear that you actually believe your own nonsense. That's great--you're not telling deliberate lies. But believing that false things are true doesn't make them true.
It's not about his race.
Yeah, you keep telling us that.
Matter of fact, he's part caucasian, remember.
Hang on--why is that even worth mentioning if "It's not about his race?"Because you and every other supporter has made it about his race since 2008.
Remember.....no one could possibly disagree with him unless they were racist. That has been the meme and many hear on hubpages...well that's the only thing they know.
You want racial equality?
Then stop treating them as though the only way they are going to survive day by day is YOU.
Teach them trades and skills and give them self-respect.Because you and every other supporter has made it about his race since 2008.
That statement has as much truth to it as the statement that "no one could possibly disagree with him unless they were racist."
Sure, some of Obama's supporters have made a big deal about how he's the first Black President--and that's because it's a historic thing. Just like Kennedy was the first Catholic President, and someday, we'll elect our first woman President, and that will also be a pretty big deal, because it's never happened before.
But it's also true that a lot of Obama's detractors have made it fairly clear that they don't like having a Black guy in the White House.
You want racial equality?
Then stop treating them as though the only way they are going to survive day by day is YOU.
Heh, that's funny.
Do you really want racial equality?
Then stop pretending that a Black guy and a White guy with the same education, experience, and drive actually have an equal chance of getting a job in the USA. The White guy has an advantage--not because the hiring manager is racist, but because the White guy is more likely to have a connection of some kind with the hiring manager than the Black guy is.
White privilege exists. Pretending that it doesn't won't make it go away any more than ignoring that suspicious lump of tissue will make it not be cancer. Acknowledging that it exists, and making a conscious effort to end it--to make everyone actually equal instead of just theoretically so--will help.No, the race thing goes a lot deeper than that. Every media outlet has driven down our throats how important this man is simply because of his race, he had zero experience at leading but was proclaimed the greatest leader we have ever had simply because the color of his skin. Liberals from the very start have used his race to advance their goals by calling any disagreement with him racist. It has happened on this site so often it is ridiculous.
I'm sure you will rebut with proof from the left that what I said is not true, but the left lies![I'm going to pretend that] he had zero experience at leading [because that makes it okay to be contemptuous of the guy, whereas overt racism is frowned upon] There, fixed it for you.
You claim that President Obama didn't have any leadership experience, but to make that claim you have to ignore a big chunk of his impressive resume, or rationalize that unless the leadership experience was as either a military officer or corporate exec, it doesn't really count.
Nobody on the left is proclaiming that Obama is the greatest president we've ever had (not in the real world anyway), but plenty of people on the Right are calling Obama the worst president in history, saying that he's not a "real" American, saying that "we" need to take "our" country back, saying ludicrous stuff about Obama being both a socialist and a fascist (which by itself should be an indicator of how stupid they either are or think the rest of us are), making continual demands to see Obama's birth certificate (and then refusing to believe that they've seen it after he showed it to everyone), even saying that he's a "secret Muslim" as if being a Muslim makes you somehow less of an American.
Nobody claimed that any of the last several White presidents weren't "real" Americans. Nobody claimed that that they were actively trying to destroy America (many folks claimed that their misguided policies would wreck the country, but that's very different from saying that they were actively trying to wreck the country). Nobody demanded to see any of the last several White presidents' birth certificate. Nobody claimed that any of the last several White presidents were "secret Druids" or whatever. But Obama gets all of this. What's the difference? His policies aren't much different from those of the Clinton administration--in fact, you could make a strong case for Obama being further to the right than Clinton was. No, the main difference between Obama and Clinton is that Obama's a Black guy, whereas Clinton's a White guy.
And no, liberals have absolutely NOT called any/all disagreement with Obama's policies racist. Just the racist ones, like the ones in the picture in my last post.
I think what's happening here is a classic case of projection: you're saying that Obama's supporters are racially motivated to distract attention from the veiled (as well as some fairly obvious) racism of many of his opponents.Jeff, I must take my hat off to you, thanks for understanding, which includes the empathy and the fact that you 'get it' as to the true nature of race relations in America today. It defines how I, a person of color, looks upon things. Combine that with the courage to speak out boldly in regards to the 'right's' endless refrain of lies and misrepresentations and you have quite a package.
I have touched on these themes in a few articles that I have written, the state of denial from the otherside has been astonishing.Thanks, Credence2, that was nice of you to say.
I think the problem that well-meaning, but clueless White guys have (and I have been guilty of well-meaning cluelessness myself in the past!) is that they think if they acknowledge the existence of White privilege, then they're saying that they didn't work for what they have, or admitting that they're racist when they aren't (or at least don't see themselves that way).
A hiring manager doesn't have to be prejudiced against other groups to feel more connected with someone from his own group. But. Every time the manager favors his own group, he by default shows disfavor to all the others, and that's the functional equivalent of being prejudiced against them. Plus, honest self-examination is hard.
Where is I say any of that?
I didn't now did I ?
But you perceive Conservatism so you apply the desired stereotype.Where is I say any of that?
I didn't now did I?
You said that I should "stop treating them as though the only way they are going to survive day by day is YOU," which is a big assumption on your part.
You also said Teach them trades and skills and give them self-respect.
There are a lot of pretty obvious racist assumptions embedded in that sentence.
First, the assumption that that "they" don't have any skills and don't know any trades. Second, the absence of the word "profession" reveals another assumption. Third, there's the assumption that "we" need to teach "them" those things. And finally, there's the assumption that "they" need to be "given" self-respect.
Seriously, mate, take a look at what you're writing.
You may genuinely not mean to sound racist--and I believe that you don't mean to sound racist--but regardless, the things you're saying sure do sound racist." Teach them trades and skills and give them self-respect."
No racism there unless you just make it up as you go.Dude, I just pointed out the implicit racist-sounding stuff in the statement. I didn't make it up. It was already there: the implications are that "they" have no skills, that "they" know no trades, and that "they" haven't got any self-respect.
No racism, just more accusations created from thin air.
You mean the thin air that your words are made of? Okay.
It's important to note: I'm not saying that you're racist. You probably aren't.
Rather, and this is important, I'm saying that what you said sounds racist. I even explained why what you said sounds racist.
Now you have a choice: you can acknowledge that it looks like you're saying that Black Americans suffer from low self respect because they have no skills, and that maybe you could have stated your position in a different way--a way that doesn't sound racist--or you can assert your right to say racist-sounding things and if people get offended, that's their problem, or, you can do what you're doing: deny that you said something that sounds racist (whether you meant to sound racist or not) when it's right there for everyone to see.I didn't say anything other than what was said was not racist, you seem to be having trouble following along. Nothing I said in any way was or sounded or could be misconstrued as racist.
Oops. I was confounding your posts with Drhu's posts. That is a mistake on my part.
But you're utterly wrong in insisting that there's no way that drhu's post has any racist undertones. They're there. I've pointed them out. Nobody has been able to explain why those things aren't racist-sounding sentiments--rather, some--like yourself--have just insisted that there's no racism detectable when it's clearly there for anyone to see (who hasn't got a vested interest in denying its presence). Basically, you're doing the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALA I'm not listening!"
I'd be embarrassed to do that, but hey.
The sad truth is they are not even aware of the fact.
The people who actually need the help don't have lot's of skills.
That's not being racist that's being real. You don't have to be any specific race to be in that condition.Nice verbal judo, but you know darn well you were talking about Black Americans when you said:
"You want racial equality?
Then stop treating them as though the only way they are going to survive day by day is YOU.
Teach them trades and skills and give them self-respect."
You know how I know that? Because you opened the argument with "you want racial equality?"
If you were just talking about any old person who happens to be "in that condition," you'd have said "You want economic equality" or even, "You want equality," full stop. But you asked about racial equality, and then (accidentally) told us all what you think about Black Americans: that they have no skills, don't know trades, and have no self-respect.
What you said was racist. You've been caught saying something that's racist.
Now what are you going to do? What you do will give us a clue about whether you merely said something that was racist because you weren't thinking about the words coming out of your keyboard (I can easily believe that) or whether you actually believe this stuff (and therefore are an actual racist as opposed to just clueless). Which is it, Doctor?I say that Jeff because the liberal theosophy behaves as thought they and they alone can save the world. These pages are replete with the hubris.
Now in the fifth year of the reign and what do we have to show for it?
An administration that won't pass a budget because doing so would stop them being able to sound the fear fear fear alert every two months the the park systems will have to shut down and people with private sector jobs will for some mysterious reason have to take furlough days because the "smartest man in the room" can't get a tax increase.
Let's don't forget the increasing disenfranchisement occurring over things like drones and the continuing troop actions that are not supposed to be occurring now.
You really don't have a lot of room for superiority.So the only response you have is a distraction away from your words and to a completely unrelated topic.
That may be because you know darn well that you said something that sounded racist, and you think that admitting that you spoke poorly means you're a bad person. (It doesn't--it just means you misspoke yourself.)
Or it may be that you genuinely think that your words didn't imply that Black Americans have no skills or self-respect, and need to be given those things. If you think that, you really need to go back to school and learn how to read critically, 'cos the implication is totally there. It's as plain as the sun in the sky, and you're looking at it and calling it the moon.
Or it may be that you genuinely believe that Black Americans have no skills or self-respect and need to be given those things.
But whatever the case, your argument amounts to nothing more than, "You're wrong because LOOK AT THAT THING OVER THERE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID! LOOK! IT'S REALLY HORRIBLE! LOOOOOOK!!!!!"
Pretty transparent.I know Black Americans have skills and self-respect. I work with lots of them every day.
There are those that don't and lot's in the same boat who aren't black.
But you want to make it all about black because if I vary from that at all here comes the big heavy racist mallet.
Have you any idea how weary people have grown of that word over the last five or six years?
Particularly when it's used in out of context and inappropriate places?
You do not however help them in the manner I have already described above and you should know that.
You must however continue using that word because it MUST be tagged to your political enemies.
That's why Hillary quit challenging Barack because she knew that word was coming her way.I know Black Americans have skills and self-respect. I work with lots of them every day.
There are those that don't and lot's in the same boat who aren't black.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Everything you said above is 100% spot on.
But you want to make it all about black because if I vary from that at all here comes the big heavy racist mallet.
Okay, here's where the disagreement lies. I don't want to "make it all about black."
My point of contention here is not with a realistic look at the fact that some folks who are struggling (whatever their race might be) don't have marketable skills. That's a realistic look at the world. My point of contention is that you said:
"You want racial equality? Teach them skills, teach them a trade, and give them some self respect."
Now, tell me how that doesn't imply that the reason Black Americans aren't distributed across the income/wealth spectrum in proportional numbers to White Americans is that they don't have skills/know trades/have self-respect in the same proportion as White Americans?
Now, you say that you know that Black Americans have skills and self-respect. That's great, and I believe you. But I still don't understand why you suggested teaching "them" skills and giving them self-respect would solve racial inequality?
Have you any idea how weary people have grown of that word over the last five or six years?
I know that a lot of White people don't like to be told that they said something that sounded racist, and often do all kinds of rhetorical judo to avoid examining what they said and why it can be construed as sounding racist.
Also, it's important to point out that saying something that sounds racist isn't the same thing as being racist.
Particularly when it's used in out of context and inappropriate places?
Explain why this is out of context and an inappropriate place, then. I've shown you why what you said way up there sounded racist. You haven't explained why that thing you said up there didn't sound racist--you've distracted, you've blustered, but you haven't said "What I said didn't sound racist and here's why...."
You must however continue using that word because it MUST be tagged to your political enemies.
Nope; only the ones that say things that sound racist.
That's why Hillary quit challenging Barack because she knew that word was coming her way.
Hillary quit challenging Barack because she was losing the primaries."Okay, here's where the disagreement lies. I don't want to "make it all about black." "
Yes you do.No what it implies is American politicians of every stripe lie like a Persian rug when they say they care about these people.
Improve their condition and they may not vote for them anymore.
That's what it means Jeff. And you know I am right.
I have nothing wrong with the people work live and live near.
I have a problem with people in elected power who expect you to suspend reality for them and behave as though they will actually do something besides collect tax money and fill thier pockets with it.
That's where the problem is.Hillary was losing the primaries because the talking idiots on TV made it clear they wanted Barack and also made it clear anyone who disagreed with him M U S T be racist. Name the Democrat politician that wants THAT moniker.
Oh and let's not forget...it was Hillary that started the birther thing which is due for another start up by the same talking buffoons that started the racist thing.Oh and let's not forget...it was Hillary that started the birther thing.
That's true. But when Obama proved that he was born in the United States, she said, "Oh. Okay, then." And she shut up about it. Because that's what you do when you raise an issue and it's answered.
Just like when people called into question John McCain's eligibility to be President: He was born overseas, they said. But after it was explained to them that the circumstances of McCain's birth mean that he counts as a natural-born citizen, they said, "Oh. Okay, then." And they shut up about it. Because that's what you do when you raise an issue and it's answered.
The ones who kept the nonsense alive, refused to accept Obama's birth certificate as valid, and made up a bunch of nonsense about Kenya--those guys are idiots, and I'm certain they only clung to their nonsense because they feared a Black president.She didn't do that and neither did he till way after he was in office and they got all the traction they could out of it. I am surprised MSNBC hasn't started blurting it out again because they are usually the ones. It usually shows up when he is having issues like he is now so I look for them to start any day to help him have cover.
Deleted
Doesn't matter where I come from, the right are quick to slander where ever they are.
Deleted
Mmm, let's see, the first one that comes to mind is after they've made millions unemployed they call them idle scroungers!
We aren't the ones who shout R A C I S T ! ! ! ! whenever we disagree with someone and can't win the argument.
That's what Socrates was talking about.No but you are the party in which several states almost 50% of primary voters were of the opinion that interracial marriage should be illegal (in one case only 40% said it should be) so maybe the fact is that significant portions of the conservative movement are racist and are being correctly labelled as such.
Facts trump fake indignation and cries of innocence.You know Josak mathematical probability will not allow you to be correct 100% of the time and I really have an idea those figures come from a biased source. I live in a very red state and most people I know could care less who marries whom.
Why don't you help straighten out then crowd whose only manner of debate is using that word?
THAT stems from ignorance.I made a thread recently on the subject, my view on it is both sides bear blame, certain liberals toss the racist accusation around too easily and certain percentages of conservatives are racist.
Both should stop, it's certainly not any kind of political capital to point out that liberals call conservatives racist when the numbers are as they are.I wonder do you have any figures on racism amongst LIBERALS?
Higher than you probably like to think.Unlikely, considering a basic requirement of being liberal is being (intelligent, scientifically-minded, a lover of the arts, an admirer of culture and philosophy, devilishly good-looking, and) fiercely opposed to racism of any kind.
Kinda funny how that's only 6 minutes long and stretches back decades. You could make a video just as long on the Dumbest Conservative Moments Ever and update it daily without ever running out of material, and the total archive video would take months to watch.
Aren't Liberals also supposed to be tolerant? I don't align myself with a Liberal or Conservative stance, but you seem incredibly hateful and judgmental towards anybody who disagrees with you. Of course you're entitled to hold this viewpoint, it simply appears that you have absolutely no patience towards those who may hold a different worldview than you. Additionally, you seem to suggest that not only are all Liberals intellectually superior to all Conservatives, but all Conservatives are racist and ignorant. Again, you have every right to feel this way, however this appears unfair and slightly hypocritical.
Willful idiocy is a vile trait that no one should ever suffer themselves to be tolerant of.
Does that man look like someone you consider from the right?
Well what does somebody from the right look like? Horns and a forked tale perhaps?
He looks like a million other half cast men but his policies tell me that he is further to the right than he is to the left.
Yup we have seen that with the last two election losses
Deleted
Slander involves saying things that aren't true. I haven't done that.
Buy a dictionary.
Racist? Now I know you have nothing left.
Let me tell you about racism...........take those people you accuse me of being racist toward and make sure they stay in a state where they believe their ONLY hope in this world is to support and vote for your candidates who actually are only making sure they stay in that condition for their voter base.
Meanwhile we must of course raise more taxes to "help" them in their plight. Money which will not go to the places that are promised in order to get people to vote for it and let's not forget those doing the voting are elected officials themselves who are going to be the ones lining their pockets with the money.
I am glad you have identified yourself as one of those who adheres to that theosophy.
Well, you have also said desegregation was a mistake so I don't listen to you on this issue any more.
And I actually listen to what people say not what twisted minds tell me they are saying. And no, that is not a personal attack on you... I have never seen a persons words twisted as much as President Obama's, everyone thinks they can read between the lines to discover some communist, liberal agenda...I have said that FORCED desegregation was a mistake.
Quite a difference there.Well, Brenda , do you know your history? We all know that separate was in practice inherently unequal. Rather than say that it was a mistake, it was necessary to equal the playing field. Where do you come from to fail to acknowledge this long accepted truth? I will not force anyone to intergrate, but until resources are equally available to all as in the school system, I say to mix it up to make sure that problems of the past do not reoccur.
Maybe I need to make something clear.
I wasn't talking about the separation of race at restaurants and bathrooms and voting etc.
Those got corrected long ago.
I was referring to forced desegregation of schools and any other forms that are just too intrusive on EACH race. Schools didn't have to be deliberately desegregated. It was silly to bus students out of their area schools just to try to equalize the number of black and white students. I feel the same way now about the "charter schools" or waivers or whatever it is that's meant by "school choice". I think kids should be educated in the district where they live. I don't think taxpayers should pay for any parent who decides their child should go to some school outside the area where they live.
And another reference is to something that Eric Holder (I think it was) who complained about personal stuff like there weren't enough mixed groups at churches and weekend barbeques! What the heck was THAT? Neighbors and friends know how to associate with each other if they want to. There aren't nearly as many prejudiced people as he made it sound like, and his complaint was sooo personally intrusive that it was ridiculous. And churches, just like individuals (at least the churches I've visited, and some of those were either predominantly black or else where mixed) are very accepting of all races. Unless of course the person tries to tout Islam or something! I've never known a "white" church that shunned anyone because of their skin color. I assume most "black" churches would welcome white people there................but then....I've never gone to the dear Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church, and sure as hay wouldn't want to unless I could teach him a lesson about how his racism (and his protegee) has done much harm to American society.
What so many people don't seem to understand is that we're all (black or white) perfectly capable of making friends with whoever we want to make friends with. There's no need to go seek out a person of a different race deliberately to make friends with them! To do so would be like saying ya think they're weird or something and ya just gotta find out what they're about! People are people, period. Now, they may have different habits or some cultural ways, etc., and so what? Who cares?
Now, I do think it's good to make an effort to welcome new neighbors, etc., who may feel ignored or etc., whether they're black or white or whatever. But that's just common courtesy and friendliness, isn't it?! I would expect that from anyone, black or white, just as I would do too.
It totally amazes me when people like Holder and Obama and Pelosi and whoever, want to be our teachers and our judges at the same time, when they themselves don't exhibit any common social sense at all, and do exhibit outright racism themselves. And intrusiveness into people's personal lives. Good grief! Nuts like that just need to leave people alone while they go learn some lessons themselves.Of, course we all have the right to associate among whom we wish, privately. I don't have to invite the rainbow tribe to eat at my supper table. FORCED busing was necessary, particularely in the beginning, since the Supreme Courts 1954 ruling was not going happen willingly or voluntarily. BUT, I do not want to see another instance of unequal educational opportunities based solely on which school you attend and minority children to not have access to all the choice tools and talent available in more affluent neighborhoods since we all have to pay taxes without this consideration. I have the right to demand equal facilities for my children otherwise Brown vs the Board of Education was an exercise in futility. I am not always convinced that this does not happen in a segregated environment. Me and mine should not be educationally or economically placed at disadvantage because the conservatives insist on segregating their tribe or race with all the best of the public's resources.
To take on another issue, if you operate a restaurant or other business, you do not have the right to discriminate as this violates law associated with equal access to public accomodations. If Senator Paul an others have a problem with this, move your restaurants to your private residence.
BTW, Don't use 1 black church as an example as how you be greeted at the thousands of others, it skews thingsI don't know what you're referring to about restaurants and Senator Paul.........
And sure, I do hope that all black churches aren't like Jeremiah Wright's.
I said I have been to churches that were predominantly black, and I was welcomed. So, no, I'm not biased against black churches at all, because I haven't been to very many, so I'm not going to assume they're unwelcoming at all!
My point was that the rants by Eric Holder and Obama etc., show that THEY DO assume that white churches are biased. When in fact, in my own experience even, I know that they are not.What rants by Obama? He's never ranted about white churches being biased.
Give examples or admit that you're spinning fairytales, please.
(Because you're spinning fairytales as always, Brenda--you should consider a career writing paranoid fantasy fiction for the same publisher that put out the Left Behind series. I think you could make a lot of money and do some real bad in the world.)
I've shared them so many times already that it's become a chore from me to inform the intentionally-uninformed.
Translation: I have NO examples that will stand up to scrutiny, so I'll bluster, and insult the people who ask for evidence in support of my ill-informed, psychotic, delusional wing-nut echo-chamber-driven nonsense.Jeff, the system would not let me provide an immediate reply to last response but it is important that I pass this on. To recap, here is what you said:
"Thanks, Credence2, that was nice of you to say.
I think the problem that well-meaning, but clueless White guys have (and I have been guilty of well-meaning cluelessness myself in the past!) is that they think if they acknowledge the existence of White privilege, then they're saying that they didn't work for what they have, or admitting that they're racist when they aren't (or at least don't see themselves that way).
A hiring manager doesn't have to be prejudiced against other groups to feel more connected with someone from his own group. But. Every time the manager favors his own group, he by default shows disfavor to all the others, and that's the functional equivalent of being prejudiced against them. Plus, honest self-examination is hard."
If we can begin by acknowleging truthfully where the disperities exist in our race relations, that in itself is a very encouraging beginning. It is human nature to tend to give preferential treatment to those of our own tribe. But in the interests of civility and a fair and cohesive society, I have to resist that tendency, no more than I would go to the corner market in my underwear just because it was more comfortable.
It all comes down to treating others like you would desire to treated in the public square
Conservatives often cited the late Robert Byrd of west Virginia as a former Klansman, implying that the Dems were the 'racist" party. But rather than going GOP during the era of the "Southern Strategy" in the late 1960's and early 70's, he chose to stick with the Dems making his transition from the past and his apology for a wrongheaded view more believable and sincere. I would have supported him in a New York minute over those that converted to GOP, changing the style but not the substance.
If I could get others to see what is obviously clear to you, then my time on hub pages has not been in vain. I would like you opinion on a couple or articles, am I on target, do you think?
I try not to self promote so I did not hyperlink, the articles are entitled
"A Message from and to Black America Parts I and II"If we can begin by acknowleging truthfully where the disperities exist in our race relations, that in itself is a very encouraging beginning.....It all comes down to treating others like you would desire to treated in the public square.
Indeed! That's basically been my position when I talk about race. I don't speak with much authority on the subject, being a White guy who benefits (whether I want to or not) from White privilege, and therefore don't experience the difficulties that women, people of color, non-Christians, etc have to deal with on a daily basis. But I try to help my fellow White guys see that yes, White privilege exists; no, it's not your fault, but; yes, it is your responsibility to be aware of it and help fix the problem.
Sure, I'll take a look at your articles when I have a few minutes to give them my full attention. In return, would you give me your feedback on one of mine? It's called "A WASP's Guide to Political Correctness."
Lol... wait for the Obama haters to show up here
Cause he HATES HIS GRANDMA
Er wait
(I keep wondering whether the critical thinking faculties of our species are really plummeting, or whether it's just that the web allows everyone to say what they think, even if they don't)Obama raising a "black army", that is utter bilge. While the rightwinger denies it, racism is definitely part of his or her formula as to how they approach the issues of the day.
I suddenly hear the theme song from The Twilight Zone..............
Will THIS ever end..........Oh no, more and more ad nauseam remarks..........ugh...........
If he really wants to overpower white civilians he will use a Hispanic army!
Oh my, it's 2013. Can't we all just love each other already? I love all my fellow hubbers no matter what color, race, etc. they are, I hope you all feel the same
I have seen some foolhardy and ill-thought out arguments, but this was honestly comical rather than offensive to me. People who buy into things like this should seriously consider educating themselves about the system of checks and balances that we instituted as a fundamental part of American democracy as well as the role of watchdog journalism in modern mass media. Presidents absolutely cannot and have not had the ability to attack their own citizens since the civil war.
Let's not forget Hollywood who will tell you to get along, then one of their hallowed directors makes a movie wherein the main character delights in killing white people. The result....they nomnate him for their highest honor.
Oh, and The First Lady took part in the ceremonies.Hollywood (for the most part) abandoned their human capacities for the exercise of rationality long ago. They really should not participate in any social activities other than producing movies, in my opinion. While their hypocrisy is often excruciatingly frustrating and the influence they wield over public opinion is slightly disturbing, I don't believe that there is anything to fear as far as them being used as a tool to help raise a black army to overpower white people. However, i don't feel as if you actually believe that,Drhu. Please forgive me if I have misunderstood your intent in any way.
I don't believe Hollywood has any more influence on politics than most other industries do.
But, actors and producers and directors are also citizens and have a right to voice their opinions and political beliefs. Otherwise, Ronald Reagan would never have moved from SAG union president to a political career.Absolutely, I agree that everybody can and should voice their opinions. I ought to have described exactly what I meant in my previous statement more explicitly, which would be the claim that the public in general seems to follow a subtle trend of offering the opinions of celebrities (specifically actors, actresses, and singers) more credence than what may be due to those particular opinions in actuality. As far as directors and the rest of the film industry, I believe that at times, they follow a loose pattern of critically assessing historical or contemporary events in a manner that specifically targets the mistakes or tragedies a group of people has committed in the past, illuminating the injustices and evils performed by the given characters associated with the story they wish to tell. While this serves the purpose of bringing the perpetrators of the wrong to accountability and vindicating the injured party, therefore discouraging future behavior of this sort, it also carries the side effect of rehashing events that have long since been resolved and creating somewhat of a barrier to social tolerance and forgiveness. For example, the movie in this instance is a re-telling of the tragedy of American slavery, an unacceptable evil that was fully dismantled so long ago that no individual that is alive today bears any responsibility for the atrocities of the 1860's, yet white Southerners are again brought under the proverbial gun sight of moralistic public criticism when the issue is once again brought to public's attention in the form of movies. I do not believe under any circumstances that these events should ever be forgotten, I'm merely asserting that there can be a negative social side-effect that is manifested with the re-opening of tragic mistakes. However, I believe this harm is negligible, and certainly not sufficient grounds for limiting director's freedom to produce and market their films.Conversely, movies that extol heroism and positive actions have the positive side-effect of encouraging this sort of action, which would be a positive endeavor for a director to undertake under almost any circumstances. I do apologize for posting such an inappropriately lengthy response.
So it's socially unacceptable for this loon to make that youtube video but it's ok for Quentin Tarantino to celebrate race hatred in a feature film?
You are proving my point.Well, I don't know because I won't be going to see it. The awards were for acting performances and for writing... not for the subject. That is the way art works, sometimes you bring nasty things to the surface.
I just told you what the film was. Would you be ok with a film celebrating the murder of Blacks? Somehow I think you would sing a different tune.
You should actually read this article
http://www.businessinsider.com/django-u … asy-2013-2
Did you see the film yourself?Oh of course.....
IT"S ART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Not saying it's right... but from what I read the story is basically about a German man (who is white) who goes around killing slave owners, not every white person he sees.
Again, movies like that don't interest me.
Why do I care what Noah Smith thinks? Yes I saw it.
Slave owning blacks? Sure.
The point is not their race but what they were doing and the atrocities they were committing and yes slave owners where usually white.
If you don't like the idea of seeing some slave owners be shot then don't watch it but I don't find them very sympathetic characters.
Let some well known Conservative....there actually are such in Hollywood...produce a fictional film that even skirts the topic of race and watch what happens.
Hypocrisy abounds on the liberal intelligentsia of the US.As far as I have heard, Tarantino has been attacked by a lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum. I have no idea what his politics are, he may not even follow politics for all I know.
I really pay no attention to the political beliefs of actors or directors; I let their work speak for them.
I like Tarantino's films but I am not interested in seeing this particular film, I'm not a fan of Westerns.Well there have been a couple films that were meant to be historical ones that skirt the the topic of race. No controversy on that score at all. You might be familiar with them:
One is called Gettysburg. Only one black character makes an appearance in the film, and he has NO LINES! Oh, but several white men talk about slavery at length.
The other is called Gods and Generals. It's not a very good movie. (Gettysburg is a cinematic triumph, even if it has a tin ear when it comes to race issues.) Even worse, it contains a particularly awkward wasplanation of how the antebellum south really wasn't such a bad place to be enslaved and how conflicted about slavery the south's slaveowners were, and how they really didn't want to be slaveowners, but maybe we'll work that problem out when we're done fighting this war for our right to own slaves.....
Controversy? Virtually none.But if I am to believe the conversation about Django...no I have not and don't plan to spend money on it, I get these impressions from the trailer which states the racism bluntly........he utilizes the same "tin ear" you accuse Gettysburg of yet it is not a problem there?
Are you sure you understand the word hypocrisy?There was really no tin ear about it, white people owned slaves sometimes under horrible conditions it's really as simple as that.
Do the poor slave owners deserve to tell their story about how they just had to treat humans as property for profit so they didn't have to do hard work like most people. Oh the poor things.Drhu, I haven't said a single word about Django, so I don't understand why you're accusing me of hypocrisy.
Are you sure you know what the word means?
Celebrate race hatred? It was a period piece where the main character had been a slave it would make no sense for him not be resentful of that. It's wonderful how certain people are so eager to shove their skeletons under the rug that they resent anyone noting they exist.
SLAVERY HAPPENED! WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT! ALABAMA BANNED INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE UNTIL 2000! 46% OF Mississippi GOP voters believe interracial marriage should be illegal, only 40% believe it should be legal!!!
Racism is and was a problem, a period piece set during slavery is not race hate it's simply a period piece.Thank you for showing you have no understanding of what I was talking about, now do you?
No just pointing out the hypocrisy which is always socially acceptable from that direction for some warped reason.
Yeah, sure, the rightwinger does not want to acknowledge that slavery in the United States was once enshrined in law. That part of history does not go away because you don't like it. Yes, the movie Django was garish, exploitative to the point of irritation. But, the targets in the film were white slavers and Uncle Toms, did they not deserve the mayhem visited upon them? Not exactly a "Gone with the Wind" was it?
But on the other hand the white folks got all defensive and irritated when the miniseries Roots (relatively mild) appeared in early 1977, So there is never a nice way to approach the topic, is there?I am fine with slave owner murder. Since the law at the time was not willing to prosecute the most blatant abuse of human rights and dignity I have no issue with the people who did so both in real life and in fiction, obviously trial and incarceration is preferable but when not possible killing them and releasing their slaves is just fine too.
Injustice demands punishment one way or the other.I'm with you violence has a way of solving all problems!
In certain situations it does, I suppose you would have preferred we bargained with Hitler and treated him real nice so he would leave us alone?
Hitler was a socialist Josaaak (of course you know that). He should be one of your heroes.
Who is that? Oh wait, you're another who does not understand socialism aren't you!
uh-huh...ok.
So by extension a movie which shouts this from the rooftops is just good art and should be enjoyed by all. I am not really a Tarantino fan to begin with.
As I have said. Anyone who would be perceived Conservative would not be getting away with this and having his film celebrated and yes it's celebrated if it is nominated for Best Picture. Would have been interesting had it won to have Michelle Obama giving the award.I didn't say it was good art the film was mediocre in my inexpert opinion which is irrelevant to the point discussed.
We see countless films about heroic white men killing non whites and if they are part of a logical story that is fine too, I enjoyed Black Hawk Down it's just it turns out conservatives have really thin skins unlike the rest of the world and can't handle a portrayal of Southerner's as bad guys, pretty wimpy if you ask me.I don't believe they were bad guys at all. They were legal owners of at that time was property.
Fine...I capitulate.
You are Liberals which gives you moral authority over ALL. Therefore if you wish to use what you would otherwise rant as hate speech without any responsibility for it of course YOU have all the right in the world to do so.
Right?
Don't get simple on me, Dhru, you know what I meant!
I just watched all six episodes of Roots for the first time since 1977 and for a completely fabricated story it was alright.
What a kook!
The president does not have 100% power over this country.Interesting thing about Gettysburg and Gods and Generals Jeff Daniels plays the same character in both films!
You guys make a great tag team.
Yes, I was very moved by the Confessions of Nat Turner.Moved? In what way was that fabrication moving?
And by the true story. What are you trying to say by bringing up his name?
That Nat Turner was a murderer and that is a fact.
Or a rebel trying to help overthrow slavery. It all depends on how you look at it.
You can argue the same about many, many, many so called white heroes in American history.As were those who fought against the British in what was to become the United States.
You think al-Qaeda and the American revolutionaries are equal? You think that men who subjugate and murder women and children are somehow the same as Thomas Jefferson? You think flying planes into building killing thousands is the same as throwing tea off a ship?
So your definition of murderer is not on whether you unlawfully kill people but who they are, how and why they do it?
Interesting because that is exactly what we are saying.But not all freedom fighters are equal. Some are more ruthless than others and some actually have a good cause... Sometimes ones freedom fighter is another's terrorist.
Well then, is killing girls who are learning to read a good cause to you?
Actually, I don't see Al-Queda as freedom fighters at all. I never said they were. They are not fighting for their country.
She never said that, must be the voices in your head.
Whoisit, you are rightwinger squared, people that resist heing held in bondage against their will are terrorists, quite frankly I wish he had slaughtered all the slave holders in the ante-bellum south, thats justice.
Rightwingers seem to get everything ass backwards....
Who did he murder, I must have missed the trial. How did it turn out?
Murder is the act of killing a man outside of legally sanctioned norms, since Washington as a non state entity had no right to declare war every person killed by American revolutionaries was a murder. Don't misunderstand I don't think it was wrong it's just that sometimes violence and killing are the only solution sad as that is.
I wasn't aware that George Washington declared war, is this another one of your made up facts like congress cleared Obama and Holder of any wrongdoing for fast and furious?
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That war be and is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories; and that the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into effect, and to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the government of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … d_Kingdom_(1812)"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,"
So the answer is George Never declared war, thanks for your input.Which though not true does not change the point that he was a murderer or did you forget that was the discussion?
Killed people without legal recourse. Defintionally was a murderer. Just like Nate Turner.
As already noted the United States was not a country and thus had no more right to declare war than Nate Tuner.
Are you living under the impression that people are only murderers if tried for it and found guilty? That is only true within our current legal system, Hitler was a murderer despite the fact he was never tried.
OMG, I cannot believe this discussion, President Obama is what? that comment is so idiotic, it doesn't even deserve a response!!! but I will say this, whether you approve of it or not Sir; He is the President Of The United States.
As Far as Quentin Tarantino, the person who made that comment obviously is not living in the same world I am. The cast of the film was wonderful, the screenplay was excellent (BTW it won the Oscar for just that), not once during the film did I get confused as to whether or not is was fiction or non fiction. Slavery is a part of American History, and Mr. Tarantino wrote a screenplay based on an historical topic surrounded by fictional characters in a story that he created.- Brenda Durhamposted 11 years ago
0Let me tell ya about this issue of black and white people, the way it is.
My family is white, from what I know. Yet I don't know all the facts. My grandfather supposedly came to America by stowing away on a boat ...from.....I dunno where! And it doesn't matter where. Really it doesn't. And supposedly I also have a certain percentage of Indian blood in me. That doesn't matter either.
What matters is what I do, how I react to life's circumstances.
My father raised me and 6 brothers, plus had raised 4 children by previous marriage. He did that by working for farmers and however he legitimately could; good honest hard work. We were dirt poor. But we were taught to work in the garden and the fields just like he did as we got older. I'm proud of that!
No one EVER heard him complain that he didn't get the same opportunities as anyone else. He never said he was deprived of money by someone else or by his ancestors or their situations in life.
The point I'm trying to make is that we were raised just as poor as any black person was. We had just as few and as many opportunities as any black person, or any Indian person, etc. Matter of fact, because I made really good grades, I had the opportunity to go to summer College on a scholarship, and if I had continued, would've had a full College education paid for free. Guess what--------at that summer College, there were many black kids, in the same program that I was in. They had the same opportunities I did. It wasn't based on skin color; it was based on financial considerations and desire/ability to learn; it was fair. That's been...what?....35 or 40 years ago. All people were free, praise God! And any necessary "rights" that weren't covered then were soon made into law.
It's so tiresome to hear Obama and others talk about "civil rights" when all they mean is advantage based on skin color. Obama wants to appear to be some great civil rights leader, when in fact he doesn't hold a candle to Martin Luther King and others. THEY already did the work; THEY already were instrumental in bringing equality to American society. ALL are free, ALL have the same rights. Obama is a man way behind the times. Rallying groups of people who are already free, wrapping them up into his own personal social agenda, all for his fame and glory. I wish he had listened in history class; I wish he had been taught correctly. But alas, he was not.
I also wish the NAACP and other specifically-racial-based institutions would see that they're behind the times and need to start considering everyone simply American instead of furthering racial division. THAT would be new progress!"I wish he had listened in history class; I wish he had been taught correctly. "
And I really wish you had listened in history class, and perhaps did some reading on your own. I wish you had been taught correctly, and not somehow internalized the falsehood that white people don't get treated any differently than people of color in the US.
I wish ignorant white people would open their eyes to the fact that people of color are still the targets of racial discrimination in this country, stop pretending that Martin Luther King magically ended all of our racial differences, and actually work to create an America without racial divides instead of ignorantly pretending that it already exists. That would be real progress.Yes, blacks are targeted for discriminatory practices. So are hispanics, orientals, whites, indians, innuits, and every other race or people with differences, perceived or real.
I, too, wish ignorant people would open their eyes to all of it. Including those that never seem to see the discrimination that whites, innocent of any discrimination themselves, have been subjected to for decades for the sins of their fathers. It's past time to stop that, too.
"ALL are free, ALL have the same rights."
Quick! How many states still won't let gay people be married?Didn't Mississippi only just recently get around to ratifying the 13th Amendment?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02 … n-slavery/
Didn't Alabama only just recently repeal a ban on interracial marriage?
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/A … endment_2_(2000)
Etc....Explain that all are equal in rights to the affirmative action people, please. I'd really like a job or education that colleges or employers aren't being forced by law to give to someone else because they're a different race.
Quick! Don't you know that any man is allowed to legally marry any woman of legal age, and has had that freedom long before anyone came up with the idea to fight for the so-called "right" for a man to marry another man?
Don't you even know that a marriage consists of....gulp......a wife and a husband?
A man cannot be a wife, a wife is, by both tradition and biological definition, a female; so that shoots down the very idea of two men getting married. Likewise the idea of lesbian "marriages".
America came such a long way and finally corrected its mistakes about black rights.
And now liberal activists want to say they have some special rights that tromp all over everyone's basic rights. Some people seem to have to have a "cause" to fight for; and when all people already have the same freedoms, they will create a "cause" because that's what they want to do----create controversy where there is none, and make a name for themselves.
When one person or group's "rights" violate the very definition and basis of someone else's true rights, that's an atrocity. Obama is an eternal "community organizer"; that seems to be his only true talent. So that's why I say let him go to some Nation that truly DOES discriminate against gays (as in....actually prosecute and kill them, etc.) because maybe he can actually have an impact there for a good reason. He certainly has no good influence here in America. Yet liberals are sooo very willing to let him pretend he's doing a humanitarian thing; they keep voting for him; and will probably still kiss his feet as he sits in retirement at their and all taxpayers' expense after only 8 years of pretend "service" to America. Disservice is what it is.
Just like the rights of women have been overemphasized and blown up into so-called "rights" that totally tromp on the rights of a helpless child to even have an opportunity to live outside the womb. A holocaust of major proportions! How anyone can ignore that is beyond conscience.So if a woman does not want to carry a pregnancy to term, how are you going to prevent it when the mother can take the RU-486 or go to another state, again, Brenda, not fertility, but futility
Brenda thinks that if you just stamp your foot and say very loudly "DON'T" then nobody will.
That desperate women won't return to back street abortionists who will just as likely kill the mother as abort the foetus, but then I suppose you would be happier with that outcome Brenda?The problem is that the life of the fetus is inextricably linked to the life of the mother. Unfortunately, the reality is that there is not much hope for an unborn child if its mother does not want it. Creating a womb police is impractical and can have an adverse effect on the right of the woman and by extension all women that are not pregnant, thanks John!
Apparently I'm not gonna prevent anything, since our lawmakers and judges keep allowing the nonsense to go on.
The NAF needs to be shut down, of course, as do other facilities that advocate killing a child under the guise of calling it "health care".
And that abortion pill should be banned from availability to doctors who use it for anything other than an actual medically-needed termination of pregnancy.
It's that simple.
I'm appalled at how little the people in charge use their human common sense. Any uneducated person with common humanitarian sense could do as good a job as most of our Federal Judges do. Crazy fact.
So, no, I don't think standing up for Life and traditional marriage is futile at all. It's just a probably-long fight for true civil rights. Those ARE the current grounds for civil rights work---protecting innocent babies and keeping the liberal agenda from forcing crap upon us.
And actually, the work is steadily going forward! There are more and more individuals and groups who keep standing, keep growing. People like that are patient but steadfast. I'm glad they're like that. That's what it takes to fight the discrimination against conservatism (to do it legally anyway).And how do you prevent a desperate women from seeking a back street abortion Brenda?
I don't.
No one does.
If she's that stubborn, then she needs to be the one to take responsibility for her actions.
Legally condoning her actions is just wrong.
Tell ya what-----why don't we just legalize drunk driving? It's a similar concept.
Why not legalize murder (not just for self-defense, mind you, but murder because someone made ya feel "desperate"?) Similar concept. After all, that person probably actually did something to ya in order for ya to feel so angry and desperate that you'd shoot them, right? Alrighty then. But what has a fetus done to the mother? NOTHING. It's the mother who caused the fetus to even be. So, if it's okay to kill an unborn baby who did NOTHING wrong, then it's common sense that a person should just be able to blow someone else away if they actually DO something to bother them.
Edit-disclaimer-the paragraph above is OF COURSE a sarcastic assessment of how the mindset of abortion advocates is twisted when it comes to responsibility about even basic right and wrong.
Abortion is murder unless there's a real medical/moral reason for termination of pregnancy. Whether it's done by a doctor who slices the kid in pieces or whether it's a little pill that slowly kills the fetus."But what has a fetus done to the mother? NOTHING. It's the mother who caused the fetus to even be."
Wow, what? What?! This is why we need to have Sex Ed in our schools, people!Really?
Tell me, who doesn't already know the facts of life?
Seriously.
What teenager doesn't know that having sex can produce pregnancy?
But (whether you were mocking or what, I dunno and don't care), I'll give you agreement on the sex education in schools. BASIC sex education. We had that even 40 years ago in little country schools, even, when I was in school.
These days, "sex education" has gone too far in schools. Kids are taught crap instead of just the basic facts of life.What! Only teenagers have sex without taking proper precautions and by extension then it must be only teenagers that seek abortions!
No happily married women (married to men that is) ever seek abortion!Are you being sarcastic? I don't understand exactly what you meant by that.
But I can tell you that the woman who was so instrumental in getting abortion legalized said that MANY women who got abortions were grown women (married and unmarried) who simply viewed the child as an inconvenience. Read "I AM ROE" and "WON BY LOVE" and hear it all from the woman nicknamed Jane Roe who worked in an abortion clinic.
Also, John, the right idea is to teach a young mother how to care for her child herself. Not to just leave her on her own altogether, no, but most certainly not to let women keep having children for others to raise, but to love her enough to help HER (and the father!) to raise and love their own children.Yes I was being sarcastic.
What about the many women who don't view an unwanted pregnancy as an inconvenience but as a life shattering disaster?
And I see you have yet to explain how "It's the mother who caused the fetus to even be." Do women suddenly have testes to provide themselves with viable sperm to reproduce asexually? This is all so confusing.
You know Brenda that I could much more easily share your point of view if every unwanted foetus that came to term was taken on and cherished by all these anti abortionists instead of being told "we've done our bit, you have been born but now you are on your own".
If you really think that drink driving and abortion are similar concepts then I despair.
And a further by the way, I'm not an advocate of abortion, I believe that it is something so personal that it is entirely up to the mother whether she aborts or not and certainly not up to people who have absolutely connection.Who doesn't take care of the babies?
For as long as I've been alive and even aware of the facts of life, there've been either ways to adopt a child out, or some benefactor who helps a young mother, or government programs that help the parent raise a child. All the way from food stamps and WIC to well-baby clinics etc.
And America has grown more compassionate. Used to be, a school girl who got pregnant was kinda shunned by schools,etc. (But still, as I recall, given the opportunity to finish her schooling at home in privacy but connected to school).
So I think that all the complaints about how a pregnant teen gets no help are simply false and used as a vehicle for abortion advocacy.But I'm not talking about only teens. I'm talking about all women, married and unmarried.
Well, then maybe some adults need basic sex education, huh?
Even our current President.
If it wasn't so horrifying, it would be amusing how a guy who supposedly graduated from Harvard (wasn't it?) doesn't even seem to fathom the basic facts of life. Guess that's why he put a man like Arne Duncan in charge of our schools too. Amazing!And maybe some adults are well aware but overpowered.
Then they need to get a handle on their "passions" and stop advocating for baby-killing.
Who's advocating for baby killing?
And I'm sorry that you have never known true passion in your life,that saddens me.Aw, don't pretend to be sad.
It's none of your business at all, but I will tell you that indeed I've known true passion.
What's up with that attitude anyway? We were actually discussing something as concerned people, discussing a subject in a general way without getting personal about it and throwing personal jabs.
Until you did that.
Are you innnocent, were you not aware that that's become an ever-increasing strategy of liberals? Or did you already know that and just used it deliberately?I'm sorry, it wasn't meant as a personal jab.
But you will understand then why just occasionally neither party is thinking about any possible out come.
Yes, I did think we were discussing people, complete with all their frailties, not robots.Thanks John!
Yes, I do know that "passion" controls some of the movements of people in both Parties.
But that's why I think they need to stop for a while, take a breather, and actually look at the basics of the whole thing, all the issues, instead of letting the whole thing keep snowballing out of control.
Yes, all people have frailties.
But that doesn't mean we should condone wrongs legally. People do have the ability to start thinking before they act. People have responsibilities. Adults should stop and think that through before they allow concepts to be legalized.No, that's exactly my point. We are programmed not to always think before we act.
You do actually understand that no one lsane actually likes abortion right? It just becomes a matter of do you want a tyrannical state than can force you to give birth, right wingers in America are supposed to be concerned about big government and liberty anti abortion legislation requires big government and the crushing of personal liberty.
It's remarkably hard to force someone to give birth if they don't want to it's not really feasible so the sane solution is to make the process safer for those who make that choice and do everything possible to give them the support they need so they won't make that choice, but you literally can't force them and there will allways be a medicine student willing to perform amateur abortions, the results of which are far more horrific.Or worse still, somebody with no medical training whatsoever.
Yeah, well, there's always gonna be some teenager or some adult who pushes cocaine or meth or some other horrible drug too.
Does that mean we should legalize hard drug sales and use?
Not hardly.Yes, it does mean we should legalise hard drugs.
The first thing that would do is put off all the users who buy into the drug scene for its relatively safe illegality.
Second it would stop unscrupulous drug dealers from introducing deadly chemicals into drugs to increase their profits.
Thirdly it would slash the cost to society of criminalising and imprisoning otherwise useful and productive members of society.Fourthly the Government could tax another group of addicts shamelessly as they are doing the tobacco users.Notice the solutions put forth are not help but legalize and tax.
Even with 100% tax it would still mean a whole lot less crime to support a habit.
You really don't get it do you?
Don't help the addict.....just provide the means and make money off of him.
Is that moral?You don't get it do you?
The biggest help that you could give to the addict is to legalise it.Wow.......
You will actually utilize a suffering person for tax dollars and you talk about right wingers?Boy, you don't half have a way of twisting words!
You get all that from me saying that even if drugs were taxed at 100% they would still cost considerably less than illegal drugs cost.
Amazing!John.....
You don't even see what you are saying.
Here's a drug addict....a condition that could at a point be fatal.
So our view of help is legalize it and make it more available.
But.............hey let's tax the drug to fund our social programs!
All the hue and cry about smoking but try and ban it and have those tax dollars vanish and watch what happens.
Why do you not see what's wrong with all that?Hm, so you are saying it would be safer to leave the addict using illegal drugs that may be cut with such health giving aids such as strychnine!
I'll repeat t one more time for you. I did not advocate taxing drugs - just pointed out that even at a tax rate of 100% it would still be cheaper than the illegal cost.I don't want anybody to have the problem to begin with.
But I can't believe you find it more moral to tax them than to help them.Do you really have a problem with comprehension or are you just trying to wind me up?
I am having a rather interesting time viewing the blind spot of a liberal.
Viewing a blind spot is best done with eyes open, not closed.
I am not convinced you know the difference John.
Lots of those folks in the sixties and seventies took way too much LSD. it caused George Harrison terminal brain cancer.Seems you're confused about pretty much everything!
Not really.
Think about what we have discussed about taxing people who are suffering............We haven't actually discussed anything!
I simply pointed out that legalised drugs would be much safer than illegal drugs and to a point raised by you said that even if they were taxed they would still be considerably cheaper and safer than illegal drugs.
You in your turn chose to misunderstand everything I said and went off on a rant of self righteous indignation whilst ignoring all the real facts about the situation.
Show me where I said that I thought it would be a good idea to tax drugs?I never said anything about the cost.
I was pointing out that you will take people who are suffering even thought they and you may not think so and use their suffering for tax purposes to line the pockets of politicians. Just like the tobacco smokers.What on earth are you talking about!
I was right second time, you are a wind up merchant.Nope.
You were on about legalizing drugs.
The government will then slap a tax stamp on the drug.
You will make addicts pay taxes for their suffering.Ah yes of course I see your point now!
Much better to make them pay black market prices for heavily adulterated drugs!
Yes so much better.
Don't you think we all pay heavily for their suffering already?heavily adulterated drugs?
As opposed to the moderately adulterated drugs?The common adulterants are generally added by unscrupulous dealers. Are you admitting that big pharma is just as unscrupulous and would use the likes of strychnine to increase profits?
Well you did say "As opposed to the moderately adulterated drugs?" what else was I supposed to get from that?
Well OK tell me what you really meant to say then.
What? Referring to heavily adulterated drugs? Simple, a lot of street drugs are cut (diluted) with substances much more dangerous than the drug itself. Add to that, the quality and strength of street drugs are inconsistent, the dose that gives you a mild high one day will kill you on another day.
No....you don't see anything at all.
The government......government......is taxing people who are suffering. I don't care if it;s just pure rat poison. i wasn't arguing street price or content just that the Government doesn't care where it gets it's tax dollars as long as it gets them.
Get it now?
NO John it';s N O T about street price versus legal price......don"t say it!!!!!!!!!!Let you into a little secret, there is no obvious tax on illegal drugs! Shock horror.
They don't tax people who are suffering, they just treat them like hardened criminals and steal their liberty, weep oh you lovers of liberty.No John....I meant after they have legalized them.....THEN they will tax them.
My God it's like having a chat with Ozzy Osborne....Oh perfectly clear, you are opposed to any move that might save addicts lives because the government might tax the drugs!
Yes I am rather.
Instead of paying lip service to concepts like liberty I believe in applying them.Liberty is making sure a politician can go out at night and have surf and turf paying for his meal with the tax money he got from an addict who is sitting somewhere maybe in withdrawals?
Sorry John.....that's just hideous.Yes it is truly hideous! How can you think such a thing!
Because it is reality.....it is what happens now with cigarettes.
Yes, and cigarettes are far more dangerous to health than most illegal drugs!
Talk about hypocritical.If someone is an addict does it matter whether it's a drug YOU prefer or not?
If it's not good for them to tax and grow fat off cigarettes why do you shrug your shoulders if someone if going to tax and grow fat off of say heroin?
One can be a smoker and not develop cancer for years or possibly never.
One who is addicted to hard drugs WILL suffer consequences within hours if he/she does not obtain more and YES I know what a nicotine fit is...I used to be a smoker. Nowhere near the same thing.
So since you approve of the politicians we will allow them to wine and dine whilst the people paying for it are kicking......But you have no problem with dealers growing fat off the proceeds of the governments actions in allowing them to grow fat!!
Talk about double standards.
You still have failed to address my point that if legally supplied drugs were taxed they would still be considerably cheaper than those supplied by the dealers who grow fat off their dealing.John..........
What is the difference in the dealers and the politicians?
Are the politicians not as guilty even if the drug is legal?
Or do you think if it's legal the addict has no problem?
Or do you not see it as a problem at all?I didn't..........
But our elected officials shouldn't profit off the misery of others in the same manner as the dealer.
Should they?So it's OK for drug dealers to profit off the misery of others, but not all right for the government to mitigate their suffering!
And why do you refuse to address my original point?Put the drug dealers in jail.............
Mitigate? their suffering? They aren't mitigating anything they are sticking it in their pocket and walking away and the poor guy addicted has no help.
But the politicians are the ones you trust so it's ok.And a hundred more spring out of the woodwork to take their place.
Sticking what in their pocket! That could be quite messy.
You think it would be of no benefit to addicts not to have to commit crime to feed their habit and it would be no benefit to remove the risk of them having to deal with potentially violent or even murderous dealers!
You do have some very strange ideas!
But yes, in general, I would trust even right wing politicians over drug dealers.John......are you actually this dense in real life??
Ok John....legalize the drugs......
Now the good old politicians tax those drugs because they are all after all legal.
They put the tax money IN THEIR POCKET. They stuff their faces with it.
Now you have legal drugs with people addicted to them and of course part of that......and when you see what they did to cigarette prices with their taxes not a small part...in the taxation that pasy their saleries.
Maybe you like that because you like the politicians.
